9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 822X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /- against the appellant along with interest thereon under section 11AB and imposing penalty of equal amount on them under Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Tribunal vide stay order dated 13.10.2014 had dismissed the stay application for non-prosecution on the ground that on that day when this matter was called, none representing the appellant appeared though a notice for hearing had been sent to them well in time. The Tribunal by this order directed the appellant to deposit the entire assessed liability in terms of the impugned order in original dated 30.04.2013 passed by the Commissioner and report compliance on 01.12.2014. It is in respect of this order that this miscellaneous application has been filed for restoration of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se Duty on printed laminated polyster film that in terms of the boards circular No. 93/75/86-Cx-III dated 09.10.1986, the process of making lacquered/laminated/ metalized films from duty paid plain/ bare plastic films would amount to manufacture that it is only sometime in 2004 that the Apex Court in the case of Metalex India India Pvt Ltd. Reported in 2004 (165) ELT 129 S.C, held that the process undertaken by the appellant does not amount to manufacture that the central excise tariff was amended by the Government sometime in 2007 and only from 2007 the appellant's process became manufacture and thereby attracting central excise duty, that the department's case against the appellant is that since the process undertaken by them does ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2012 (276) ELT 172 Del. And SRV Printed Bag Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE 2012 (276) ELT 15 Del, Where the facts and issue involved are identical, has held that in such a situation the cenvat credit cannot be denied, that in view of the above the impugned order is not sustainable and hence the requirement of pre-deposit of Cenvat credit demand, interest thereon and penalty may be waived for hearing of the appeal and recovery thereof may be stayed. 7. Shri Yashpal Sharma Ld. DR opposed by reiterating the findings of the Commissioner in the impugned order. 8. We have considered the submissions from both the sides in respect of the stay application. There is no dispute that during the period prior to amendment of the tariff in 2007 in terms of the Apex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
